New York v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 03-1016.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation431 F.3d 801
PartiesState of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors.
Decision Date09 December 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03-1048.,No. 03-1033.,No. 03-1040.,No. 03-1044.,No. 03-1036.,No. 03-1046.,No. 03-1016.,No. 03-1047.,No. 03-1041.,No. 03-1045.

Page 801

431 F.3d 801
State of NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent
NSR Manufacturers Roundtable, et al., Intervenors.
No. 03-1016.
No. 03-1040.
No. 03-1045.
No. 03-1033.
No. 03-1041.
No. 03-1046.
No. 03-1036.
No. 03-1044.
No. 03-1047.
No. 03-1048.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
December 9, 2005.

On Petitions for Rehearing.

Robert Anthony Reiley, Dept. of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Reg. Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, James M. Stuhltrager, James Robert May, Mid-Atlantic Environmental Law Center, Wilmington, DE, William M. Dillon, County Counsel's Office of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, Robert N. Kwong, County Counsel's Office of Ventura, Ventura, CA, Kathrine Currie Pittard, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Division, Sacramento, CA, Philip M. Jay, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, CA, David Preston Schott, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, Monterey, CA, Leslyn K. Syren, Steven M. Basha, for Petitioners.

Norman Louis Rave, Jr., John Charles Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Lois Godfrey Wye, U.S. Department of Justice, (DOJ) Environment and Natural Resources, Angeline Purdy, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of the petition of the Utility Air Regulatory Group ("UARG") for rehearing filed August 8, 2005; the petitions of the Clean Air Implementation Project ("CAIP") and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for rehearing filed August 8, 2005, and the responses thereto; and the motion of the State of North Dakota for leave to file a response to the petitions of CAIP and EPA, and the lodged response, it is

ORDERED that the motion for leave to file be denied. The Clerk is directed to return to the State of North Dakota the lodged response. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that UARG's petition be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that CAIP's and EPA's petitions be denied. With respect to EPA's "Clean Units" rule, see the opinion attached to this order filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams.* It is

FURTHER ORDERED that EPA's request for clarification as to any retroactive effect of the ruling on Pollution Control Project provision be denied. Because no specific retroactive application of this provision is before the court, it would be premature to rule on this request.

---------------

Notes:

* With respect to the "Clean Units" rule, Circuit Judges Rogers and Tatel vote to deny the petitions for rehearing substantially for the reasons stated in the attached opinion.

---------------

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of rehearing (with respect to EPA's "Clean Unit" rule).

In petitioning for rehearing, EPA for the first time calls...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...of the PSD program that reflect a balancing of those goals. See, e.g., New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 27 (DC Cir.), rehearing en banc den. 431 F.3d 801 Congress was also keenly aware that the PSD analyses and controls that it was mandating had to be implemented on a source-by-source basis, an......
  • New York v. E.P.A., No. 03-1380.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 17, 2006
    ...require an increase in maximum emission rates, that issue was resolved in New York I, 413 F.3d at 19-20, 40; see also New York v. EPA, 431 F.3d 801, 802-03 (D.C.Cir.2005) (Williams, J., concurring in denial of rehearing), and is irrelevant because it does not address what constitutes a "phy......
  • Felter v. Kempthorne, No. 06-5092.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 19, 2007
    ...that "we have a duty to conduct an `independent examination' of the statute in question." Id. at 1345-46; see also New York v. EPA, 431 F.3d 801, 802 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (Williams, J., concurring) (addressing similar issue with regard to applicable regulation parties failed to raise). Here, the......
  • Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction, Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation Plan:
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 30, 2010
    • December 30, 2010
    ...the PSD provisions should be interpreted with the PSD purposes in mind, New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 23 (DC Cir.), rehearing en banc den., 431 F.3d 801 (2005), and the same should be true of CAA section 110(k)(5) as applied to PSD Relationship of This Rulemaking to Other States EPA is not, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 cases
  • New York v. E.P.A., No. 03-1380.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • March 17, 2006
    ...require an increase in maximum emission rates, that issue was resolved in New York I, 413 F.3d at 19-20, 40; see also New York v. EPA, 431 F.3d 801, 802-03 (D.C.Cir.2005) (Williams, J., concurring in denial of rehearing), and is irrelevant because it does not address what constitutes a "phy......
  • Felter v. Kempthorne, No. 06-5092.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 19, 2007
    ...that "we have a duty to conduct an `independent examination' of the statute in question." Id. at 1345-46; see also New York v. EPA, 431 F.3d 801, 802 (D.C.Cir. 2005) (Williams, J., concurring) (addressing similar issue with regard to applicable regulation parties failed to raise). Here, the......
  • National Parks Conservation v. Tenn. Valley Auth., No. Civ.A. 01-403-VEH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • January 17, 2006
    ...to rise up from what I thought was its NY v. EPA coffin, but see Judge Williams's concurrence in the denial of rehearing, supra, 431 F.3d 801, 2005 WL 3334349 (D.C.Cir.2005). Absent the Supreme Court's granting certiorari in either NY v. EPA or U.S. v. Duke Energy, if there is to be further......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT